Current Events > Christians believe what's in the Bible because it's the word of God

(+) Yeah! (+)

Shishiwakamaru posted...

Wonderful, you have just disproved all religion.

Not really of course. A very simple response to this is that God must exist outside of the rules of the universe while the universe itself obviously must follow them. That isnt a very controversial claim. If you dont agree with it OK, but stop attacking people who do.

Im not attacking them, Im just saying they deny science and religion is not compatible with science. So long as they stick to just religion its fine, but I hope they dont move onto other more problematic beliefs

WingsOfGood posted...

Religion exists, bigfoot doesnt. ?

Both are baseless bullshit spread to dumb people as real.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Im not attacking them, Im just saying they deny science and religion is not compatible with science. So long as they stick to just religion its fine, but I hope they dont move onto other more problematic beliefs

Yes, and I am calling that attacking.

Religious people, even of the same religion and denomination, are not a monolith. When you say religious people are fundamentally anti-science, you necessarily are turning religious people into a monolith.

Did you see that comic from yesterday where the Marvel and Star Wars fan wouldnt date the woman because she was religious? If you thought that was wrong or oversimplifying the argument at all, maybe you can see where Im coming from.

Sayoria posted...

Both are baseless bullshit spread to dumb people as real.

Religion solves a problem for people. The question of "where do we go when we die?" Religion helps people mourn dead loved ones. Believing in religion helps some people behave better when they're following the ten commandments. Some people have deeply religious experiences thru meditation. Some people have deeply religious experiences thru prayer. Some people have experienced Near Death Experiences, and came back believing in a higher power (these possibly can be explained thru science and what the brain does when it begins to shut down, sure).

You don't necessarily NEED religion to be a good person, obviously. You can have your own morals and be a nice person without it. Some of us feel like we have a deep connection to our souls thru religion. It helps us get through the day or get over the hardships of life. For these people, their religion doesn't even have to be real. It's helping them and their mental health.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Any Christian church that accepts the old testament and thinks the the new testament is alive as opposed to... dead(Calvinism might say that parts of the old testament have already been confirmed)...?

Your post is confusing, and I am not sure it is even relevant.

But I can breakdown for you:

1. 7th day aventists - believe the old testament is still binding and worship on Saturday
2. Catholicism - believe the new testament is accompanied by an oral gospel of which is still being added to by their clergy such as the pope

So yes, you can probably find whatever it was you were asking.

My point though was that "the bible is only considered the word of God because it says it is itself!"
Is not a good argument since the bible is collection of books from various writers over thousands of years.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

Yes, and I am calling that attacking.

That's not what an attack is.

Your reply is akin to claiming anyone who states facts that hurt your faith is being mean.

You are essentially calling all religious beliefs illegitimate. I would call that an attack. And you are doing so based on weak generalizations. IMO the best response is to just call out your rhetoric.

When people care more about confirming their pre-existing beliefs than they do about the truth, they care very little - if at all - if their logic is faulty or circular.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

You are essentially calling all religious beliefs illegitimate. I would call that an attack.

By this logic any disagreement is "an attack," which of course is ludicrous. Why is telling someone they're mistaken acceptable except on the issue of faith being valid?

TheOtherMike posted...

By this logic any disagreement is "an attack," which of course is ludicrous. Why is telling someone they're mistaken acceptable except on the issue of faith being valid?

This.

Everything you don't want to hear that might shatter your faith isn't "an attack."
Conclusions based on faith fundamentally contradict science. Science isn't at all about believing in something because of faith.
@Shishiwakamaru

@buddhamonster put it quite well.
"The scientific method is about the application of skepticism and the reliance of observable facts and repeatable experiments to create hard data that can then be analyzed to reach a conclusion. Literally the antitheses of blind faith believing..."

Shishiwakamaru posted...

You are essentially calling all religious beliefs illegitimate.

Conspiracy theories about the origin of life are no more legitimate than any other conspiracy theories.

Kloe_Rinz posted...

It inherently does. Belief in god means you deny one of the most fundamental rules of our universe which is that you cannot create or destroy energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

A general rule of both math and science is that when you get to really extreme scenarios everything starts getting complicated.

The bible may indeed be the word of God but at the end, it's still human beings who wrote the bible. I may be Roman-Catholic but even I don't believe everything that's in it.

Trumble posted...

Conspiracy theories about the origin of life are no more legitimate than any other conspiracy theories.

I know I'm speaking to different people, but come on. You are calling religious beliefs conspiracy theories and I honestly don't know if the other people agree with this view or not. I mean if you do, I don't think there's any question about 'attacking' anymore...

Let me ask you this before I say anything else, can you tell me which of my beliefs specifically (knowing that I am a religious person who doesn't believe the stories in religious texts are literally true, generally speaking) are anti-science?

scientific advances are routinely made by believing religionists

Shishiwakamaru posted...

Let me ask you this before I say anything else, can you tell me which of my beliefs specifically (knowing that I am a religious person who doesn't believe the stories in religious texts are literally true, generally speaking) are anti-science?

If the question is, "is my faith something is real, scientific?"

The answer is no.

That includes partially believing something is true based on faith, or all of something is true based on faith.

Both are not scientific.

Imagine believing

Vyrulisse posted...

Weird how you religion bashers only mention Christians.

Islam and Judaism and everything else are just as fucking silly when you really think about.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

Let me ask you this before I say anything else, can you tell me which of my beliefs specifically (knowing that I am a religious person who doesn't believe the stories in religious texts are literally true, generally speaking) are anti-science?

The very concept of faith is anti-science.

Vyrulisse posted...

Weird how you religion bashers only mention Christians.

Weird how you are on a soapbox victim complex as if it's only Christianity criticized.

TheOtherMike posted...

By this logic any disagreement is "an attack," which of course is ludicrous. Why is telling someone they're mistaken acceptable except on the issue of faith being valid?

@Shishiwakamaru

What's most amusing, is that they can never explain why God is worth trusting and not just some megalomaniac who desires worship

hockeybub89 posted...

The very concept of faith is anti-science.

I think there's a difference between unscientific and anti-science that a lot of people here are ignoring. There are many fundamental questions about human life and the universe that no one knows the answer to. There is nothing scientific about attributing these things to God, but there is nothing anti-science about it either.

You know, the concept of faith exists outside of religious contexts. If you trust in someone or take someone for their word, you are having faith in them. There is nothing scientific about this, but there is nothing anti-science about it either. The problem here is that people aren't differentiating between these two terms. And furthermore it's pretty clear that people here are calling religious people stupid. That's just my perspective, though.

TheOtherMike posted...

@Shishiwakamaru

The reason why is that you can't simply tell a religious person they are "mistaken." The existence of God, the afterlife, etc. is unfalsifiable, so you never will be able to prove a religious person wrong. That's what makes religious beliefs special compared to political beliefs for example. Even if you don't believe the same things as another person you should have a basic level of respect for their religious beliefs. If you are an atheist you should try to be the opposite of the example r/atheism sets.

I never understand this logic.

If I told you that I met God and he told he that Jesus did exist and died for all of everyone's sins with some exceptions (paraphrasing), you would just assume I'm crazy or lying. So would anyone making any argument like this.

It goes for everyone who's Christian too. It seems like every reason to be Christian has a quick, nice reason by people who doubt Christianity to immediately try and brush off. Anything from calling someone who believes either brainwashed, stupid, crazy, or wrong

All of them conveniently without knowing the actual truth or circumstances of anything.

itachi15243 posted...

I never understand this logic.

If I told you that I met God and he told he that Jesus did exist and died for all of everyone's sins with some exceptions (paraphrasing), you would just assume I'm crazy or lying. So would anyone making any argument like this.

It goes for everyone who's Christian too. It seems like every reason to be Christian has a quick, nice reason by people who doubt Christianity to immediately try and brush off. Anything from calling someone who believes either brainwashed, stupid, crazy, or wrong

All of them conveniently without knowing the actual truth or circumstances of anything.

Because this isn't how the bible actually works.

Moses wrote some books, people believed in Moses. There is prophecy in some of these books you either might beleive or don't. Part of that discussed God planning something big for the world later and another prophet like Moses rising.

Then Moses died.

Hundrers years later more prophets wrote more books that agreed with Moses and had similar things in it.
Rinse repeat for hundreds of years.

Then the New Testament arrives. Jesus is declared to fulfill this prophecy and that one and another in tons of those different books written hundreds to thousands of years ago.
Turns out there is a ton of these manuscripts and people can still read them as well. There has been people over the thousands of years since who did and declared many things about them as well.

This is..... essentially what you might call, peer reviewed religion.

What you said about you just saying God told you something and you hope people believe you is the difference between a dude saying he thinks the vaccines do this and that and a peer reviewed medical expert saying that this is what it does.

This is not an argument to tell you to believe the bible but rather to explain to you how stupid your question and comparison actually is. I am not saying medical science is like religion either, but rather the "experts" in that space if you will have over thousands and thousands of years put input into the religion vs. you just coming up with something.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

The reason why is that you can't simply tell a religious person they are "mistaken." The existence of God, the afterlife, etc. is unfalsifiable, so you never will be able to prove a religious person wrong. That's what makes religious beliefs special compared to political beliefs for example. Even if you don't believe the same things as another person you should have a basic level of respect for their religious beliefs. If you are an atheist you should try to be the opposite of the example r/atheism sets.

That's a lot of words to sidestep the question.

You are mistaken about your religious beliefs. Unfalsifiable claims should be dismissed specifically because they're unfalsifiable. Affirmative belief in unfalsifiable claims is literally antithetical to the scientific method.

By your logic the above paragraph is an attack. Why is that an attack but a similar criticism of anything else is not?

WingsOfGood posted...

Because this isn't how the bible actually works.

Moses wrote some books, people believed in Moses. There is prophecy in some of these books you either might beleive or don't. Part of that discussed God planning something big for the world later and another prophet like Moses rising.

Then Moses died.

Hundrers years later more prophets wrote more books that agreed with Moses and had similar things in it.
Rinse repeat for hundreds of years.

Then the New Testament arrives. Jesus is declared to fulfill this prophecy and that one and another in tons of those different books written hundreds to thousands of years ago.
Turns out there is a ton of these manuscripts and people can still read them as well. There has been people over the thousands of years since who did and declared many things about them as well.

This is..... essentially what you might call, peer reviewed religion.

What you said about you just saying God told you something and you hope people believe you is the difference between a dude saying he thinks the vaccines do this and that and a peer reviewed medical expert saying that this is what it does.

This is not an argument to tell you to believe the bible but rather to explain to you how stupid your question an comparison actually is.

My point was that tc or anyone else with that mindset would not know. You can't prove that there isn't a God. You can't definitively say that it's wrong, that I'm wrong, or anything of that nature.

Even looking at Christianity like that is part of the problem I'm speaking about. I've heard a lot of people make very similar arguments like that and they usually all are different, like they're using the same template but aren't on the same page.

At the end of the day what I really don't understand is why bother to to make topics like these? If a person wants to belive in go or the bible, why not let them, or at least not attack or mock them for believing?

Again, you don't know everything.

TheOtherMike posted...

That's a lot of words to sidestep the question.

You are mistaken about your religious beliefs. Unfalsifiable claims should be dismissed specifically because they're unfalsifiable. Affirmative belief in unfalsifiable claims is literally antithetical to the scientific method.

By your logic the above paragraph is an attack. Why is that an attack but a similar criticism of anything else is not?

I went into more detail in the post above that one. You are wrong to say religious and scientific beliefs can't coexist, and I'll leave it at that.

And also, my attack claim stems from the general opinion that this board has of religion and religious beliefs. Hostility does not have to be explicit, and I feel pretty justified in my view.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

You are wrong to say religious and scientific beliefs can't coexist, and I'll leave it at that.

I never said they can't coexist. I said they're incompatible because belief in something without evidence is unscientific, which is an indisputable fact.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

And also, my attack claim stems from the general opinion that this board has of religion and religious beliefs.

No, your attack claim was first directed specifically at Kloe_Rinz in post 45. He then explained in post 51 that he wasn't attacking anyone. You then replied in 53 "I am calling that attacking." This entire exchange has been about you deciding that any claim that faith is incompatible with science is an attack, and had nothing to do with "general opinion."

Shishiwakamaru posted...

Hostility does not have to be explicit, and I feel pretty justified in my view.

You are imagining hostility where there is none, and ironically displaying that persecution complex people of faith are stereotypically famous for. And you still are refusing to answer my question, so again:

You are mistaken about your religious beliefs. Unfalsifiable claims should be dismissed specifically because they're unfalsifiable. Affirmative belief in unfalsifiable claims is literally antithetical to the scientific method.

By your logic the above paragraph is an attack. Why is that an attack but a similar criticism of anything else is not?

It's very possible to be a scientist while being religious at the same time, you just have to literally play cognitive dissonance and other logical fallacies with your own mind and separate the two concepts. I know because that's how I used to be when I was younger and religious. And I'm not trying to be mean about it, but that concept also applies to other things we have a bias for like our choices in music and foods we eat.

most people realize that, as a pragmatic matter, you don't have to choose between the two. no matter how contradictory they may be

Shishiwakamaru posted...

I know I'm speaking to different people, but come on. You are calling religious beliefs conspiracy theories and I honestly don't know if the other people agree with this view or not. I mean if you do, I don't think there's any question about 'attacking' anymore...

Explain what, other than social acceptance, makes a religion different from any other conspiracy theory.

Trumble posted...

Explain what, other than social acceptance, makes a religion different from any other conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy theories are falsifiable.

Pizza gate can be disproven.
Moon landing can be proven as well.

Fine, I will specifically answer your question.

If your friend dropped you off at the store and said they would be back in 1 hour, and you believe what they say, you would be having faith in them. There would be zero reason to question your belief in science.

Now if a person believes that the Bible is literally true, the earth is 6000 years old, there was once a great flood that killed everything on earth but life was able to continue on thanks to Noah's efforts, etc. then there is good reason to say that someone is being anti-science. To accept these as literally true you have to deny many scientific discoveries.

But believing God exists and created the universe is not the same thing as this. We don't know the answer to these questions, and saying that God is behind them is just as good an answer as any. The difference between believing in Bible stories and believing in God is the unfalsifiability of the existence of God. When we are talking about things that are falsifiable, then it makes sense to use scientific arguments. When we are talking about things that are unfalsifiable, it doesn't. Going back to that original example, imagine if you responded to your friend by saying "Sorry I can't just take your word for it, I need evidence that you will be back in 1 hour", you would probably get a response of WTF, for good reason.

In other words, religion and science are related, but they are separate, and that's okay. And again, saying religious people are fundamentally anti-science is a pretty thinly-veiled insult against their intelligence, but whatever.

WingsOfGood posted...

Conspiracy theories are falsifiable.

Pizza gate can be disproven.
Moon landing can be proven as well.

Conspiracy theories can never be disproven to an extent that the majority of believers in them will accept. Religion can never be disproven to an extent that the majority of believers in them will accept.

Back in reality, there is infinitely more proof than any reasonable person would ever need, against the vast majority of conspiracy theories and the vast majority of religions.

The only difference is the social acceptability.

WingsOfGood posted...

Conspiracy theories are falsifiable.

Pizza gate can be disproven.
Moon landing can be proven as well.

Prove aliens haven't visited earth. That's definitely a conspiracy theory.

Trumble posted...

Back in reality, there is infinitely more proof than any reasonable person would ever need, against the vast majority of conspiracy theories and the vast majority of religions.

The only difference is the social acceptability.

You can prove the moon landing wasn't faked. Or wait till we land there again.

How are you going to disprove God?

Shishiwakamaru posted...

If your friend dropped you off at the store and said they would be back in 1 hour, and you believe what they say, you would be having faith in them.

No, I would have a reasonable expectation that he would do as he said based on a history of reliability. This is categorically not the same as belief in something with no evidence. But this has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

But believing God exists and created the universe is not the same thing as this.

I never said these were the same. Of course unfalsifiable beliefs aren't the same as beliefs that have been proven false.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

We don't know the answer to these questions, and saying that God is behind them is just as good an answer as any.

Literally "God of the gaps." Again, this is explicitly unscientific.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

When we are talking about things that are falsifiable, then it makes sense to use scientific arguments. When we are talking about things that are unfalsifiable, it doesn't.

Wrong. When we are talking about claims that are unfalsifiable the scientific approach is to dismiss them out of hand until they can be falsified. This is where you're fundamentally misunderstanding the incompatibility between faith and science.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

And again, saying religious people are fundamentally anti-science is a pretty thinly-veiled insult against their intelligence, but whatever.

No one said that. What we're saying is the belief itself is unscientific, because it objectively and indisputably is. If you take that to be a "thinly-veiled insult against their intelligence" then we go back to that persecution complex I mentioned before. But a fact presented as a fact is not an insult. If I say the scientific method doesn't allow for sentiment, am I calling scientists inherently unfeeling?

Oh, and you still didn't answer my question. At this point I can only assume it's because you can't. So here it is simplified: Why do you think religion should be free from criticism when all other beliefs are not?

RenescoStCewl posted...

Prove aliens haven't visited earth. That's definitely a conspiracy theory.

This is more religion actually. Because usually this is that said aliens are the gods of ancient religons right?

But you could probably falsify this eventually when the universe is explored. If you find the aliens, you can ask them. If you don't, then there was no aliens to visit.

Shishiwakamaru posted...

The reason why is that you can't simply tell a religious person they are "mistaken." The existence of God, the afterlife, etc. is unfalsifiable, so you never will be able to prove a religious person wrong. That's what makes religious beliefs special compared to political beliefs for example. Even if you don't believe the same things as another person you should have a basic level of respect for their religious beliefs. If you are an atheist you should try to be the opposite of the example r/atheism sets.

Simply feeling like something is true doesn't make it scientific. That's what you aren't understanding.

Science doesn't care about one's faith that the moon is made of cheese, the earth being flat or faith that God exists.

You are more than welcome to have faith in those things, however no, it's not scientific.

You seem to be seeking a safe space where one must acknowledge the shape of a square as a circle or it's "an attack." You are more than welcome to have faith that the shape of a square is a triangle, however pointing out a triangle has 3 sides, not 4 isn't "attacking you" just because you don't want to hear that.
@Shishiwakamaru

WingsOfGood posted...

If you don't, then there was no aliens to visit.

"They're just hiding!"
"They went extinct!"
"They're in a part of the universe we can't reach anymore!"

Much like with religion, conspiracy theories can come up with endless excuses as to why any disproof is invalid.

Again, there is no difference except for social acceptability. You just happen to personally believe this particular conspiracy, but not others, which is why you can't see that it's exactly the same thing.

Trumble posted...

"They're just hiding!"
"They went extinct!"
"They're in a part of the universe we can't reach anymore!"

Much like with religion, conspiracy theories can come up with endless excuses as to why any disproof is invalid.

Again, there is no difference except for social acceptability. You just happen to personally believe this particular conspiracy, but not others, which is why you can't see that it's exactly the same thing.

Conspiracies have been disproven and people still believe them. This does not make them not falsifiable.

Again, how do you disprove God? Your argument is trash.

The proper response to not knowing an answer is "I don't know", not "Well no one knows, so I'm gonna guess and have faith I'm right."

The real question is what makes religion special? People will scrutinize or mock all kinds of illogical beliefs, but if you do that to religion, it's suddenly taboo.

IMNOTRAGED posted...

bats are birds

bats are clearly imp hellspawn

hockeybub89 posted...

The proper response to not knowing an answer is "I don't know"

"I don't know. yet."

Do you guys also assume multiverse theory is a conspiracy?

People who believe there are other dimensions are just like fake moon landing people and so are religious people?

i would have assumed that atleast the more learned ones would accept that the basis of Christianity was written by Man, not by God, after the Council of Nicea

Shishiwakamaru posted...

Yes, and I am calling that attacking.

and youre wrong. Just because you want to feel like you were attacked doesnt mean you were. If you dont like the implications behind religion being called anti-science, I cant help you.

Medussa posted...

"I don't know. yet."

True.